Opinion
June 26, 1926.
Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
Kotzen Brothers [ Milton M. Siegel of counsel], for the appellants.
Max Schmer, for the respondent.
We cannot assume that the 1924 amendment of section 1425 of the Civil Practice Act (added by Laws of 1921, chap. 199, as amd. by Laws of 1924, chap. 514), providing for judgment for rent, was intended, contrary to well-established principles, to warrant the entry of judgment for rent against a tenant not personally served with the precept or who had not appeared in the proceeding.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.
All concur; present, BIJUR, O'MALLEY and LEVY, JJ.